swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Jurisdiction - From: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Credit Agricole Indosuez v Chailease Finance Corporation [2000] EWCA Civ 19
28 Jan 2000
CA
Jurisdiction
[ Bailii ]
Messier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and Others Gazette, 09 March 2000; Times, 14 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 48; [2000] 1 WLR 2040
21 Feb 2000
CA
Lord Mustill, The Master Of The Rolls Lady Justice Hale
Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction
The defendants sought a declaration that they would not be liable in respect of their potential involvement in a pending action. The appellants asserted that such a declaration could not be granted since no proceedings were yet in issue. The court said that such orders might be useful in simplifying international court actions, and that a primary motive for seeking the order was to establish a UK jurisdiction was not determinative. Lord Woolf summarised the modern position on granting negative declarations: "The approach is pragmatic. It is not a matter of jurisdiction, it is matter of discretion. The deployment of negative declarations should be scrutinised and their use rejected where it would serve no useful purpose. However, where a negative declaration would help to ensure that the aims of justice are achieved the court should not be reluctant to grant such declarations. They can and do assist in achieving justice . . . While negative declarations can perform a positive role they are an unusual remedy insofar as they reverse the more usual roles of the parties. The natural defendant becomes a claimant and vice-versa. This can result in procedural complications and possible injustice to an unwilling 'defendant'. This in itself justifies caution in extending the circumstances where negative declarations are granted, but, subject to the exercise of appropriate circumspection, there should be no reluctance to their being granted when it is useful to do so."
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Youell and others v Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd and others [2000] EWHC 220 (Comm); [2000] CLC 1058; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 553; [2001] IL Pr 34; [2001] Lloyd's Rep IR 553; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 102
13 Mar 2000
ComC
Aikens J
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc; In re Latrefeers Inc; Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co and others (No 2); CA 15-Mar-2000 - Times, 15 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 36; [2001] 2 BCLC 116
Fenland District Council v Rueben Rose (Properties) Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 92
28 Mar 2000
CA
Otton, Judge LJJ
Planning, Jurisdiction
[ Bailii ]
Roger Thomas Donohue v Armco Inc and others [2000] EWCA Civ 94; [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 579; [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 641; [2000] CLC 1090
29 Mar 2000
CA
Contract, Jurisdiction
The claimant sought an order restraining the defendants from pursuing a claim in America. The parties were party to a contract governed by English law, but the allegation was one of fraud, and the defendants said this was outside the provisions of the contract. Held: Where a remedy was available both in England and in a foreign jurisdiction, proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction would only be restrained by order here where the foreign proceedings were in some way abusive. An English court may decline an injunction or stay where there was an exclusive jurisdiction clause, but also claims outside the contract which would result in parallel and conflicting proceedings. In this situation there was an overwhelming advantage in securing one decision in the most appropriate forum, which was New York. Injunction refused under conditions.
Supreme Court Act 1981 37
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Society of Lloyd's v White and others; QBD 14-Apr-2000 - Times, 14 April 2000
Vale Do Rio Doce Navegacao SA and another v Shanghai Bao Steel Ocean Shipping Co Ltd and Others; QBD 14-Apr-2000 - Times, 16 May 2000; [2000] 2 All ER (Com) 70; [2000] EWHC 205 (Comm); [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1
Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same; HL 16-May-2000 - Times, 16 May 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1004; [2000] UKHL 25; [2000] 2 All ER 986
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others; QBD 21-Jun-2000 - Times, 21 June 2000; Gazette, 22 June 2000; [2000] 2 Ll.R. 684
Oceano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores (Judgment) C-240/98; [2000] EUECJ C-240/98
27 Jun 2000
ECJ
European, Jurisdiction, Consumer
Europa Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, it must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts in so far as it causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
The protection provided for consumers by Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts. The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
Europa Approximation of laws - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13 - Power of the national court to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract is unfair when making its assessment of the contract - Obligation to ensure the effectiveness of the directive when national law is applied. Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, it must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts in so far as it causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
The protection provided for consumers by Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts. The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Holland v Lampen-Wolfe; HL 20-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 17 August 2000; Times, 27 July 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1573; [2000] UKHL 40; [2000] 3 All ER 833
Group Josi Reinsurance Company Sa v Universal General Insurance Company Times, 09 August 2000; C-412/98; [2000] EUECJ C-412/98
9 Aug 2000
ECJ
Jurisdiction, Insurance, European
The Brussels Convention rules allowing jurisdiction apply whenever the proposed defendant is domiciled in a convention country. The plaintiff need not be. The special rules on jurisdiction which apply to insurance cases do not apply to reinsurance contracts.
Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Montagu Evans v Young Times, 19 September 2000
19 Sep 2000
OHCS
Contract, Jurisdiction
In order to use the convention to give a country jurisdiction in a claim involving the payment of money only, it was not enough that the vendor had the option of paying in the UK, or that other parts of the contract might have been performed in the UK. They had to establish that Scotland was the sole place provided by the contract for performance of the particular obligation in issue.
Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2); HL 12-Oct-2000 - Times, 17 October 2000; Gazette, 02 November 2000; [2000] UKHL 51; [2000] 4 All ER 481; [2000] 3 WLR 1376; [2002] 1 AC 1; [2001] CLC 118; [2001] IL Pr 40
Navigation Maritime Bulgare v Rustal Trading Ltd (the Ivan Zagubanski) [2000] EWHC 222 (Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 106; [2002] 1 LLR 106
16 Nov 2000
ComC
Aikens J
Jurisdiction, Arbitration
The court was asked whether an application to the Court for an anti-suit injunction to enforce an English arbitration clause falls within Article 1(4) of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, which excludes "arbitration" from their scope.
[ Bailii ]
Ot Africa Line Ltd v Fayad Hijazy and Another; Same v Fayad Hijazy and Others Times, 28 November 2000
28 Nov 2000
QBD
Litigation Practice, Human Rights, Jurisdiction
The human right to a fair trial did not amount to a right to an unfettered choice of tribunal. Contracts said that they were exclusively governed by English law and to be decided in England. Proceedings between the parties having already commenced in England some of the defendants were enjoined from continuing another action they had begun in Belgium arising from the same contract.
Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 art 17
Handelsveem Bv and Others v Coreck Maritime GmbH Times, 01 December 2000; C-387/98; [2000] ECR I-9337; [2000] EUECJ C-387/98
1 Dec 2000
ECJ
Jurisdiction, Transport, European
When a court looked at a choice of the jurisdiction clause, it was not necessary that the clause should withoutmore establish the jurisdiction. A clause could be effective where the forum will be ascertainable at the time by reference to a the circumstances. In this case of the clause required a dispute under a bill of lading to be decided in the country where the carrier had his principal place of business. The requirement under the convention, that the parties should have should of "agreed" the jurisdiction was satisfied where they had agreed a method of establishing it. The Brussels convention applied only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original contract was domiciled in the contracting state and, second, the parties agreed to submit any dispute before the Court of a contracting state.
"The Court has held that, by making the validity of a jurisdiction clause subject to the existence of an 'agreement' between the parties, article 17 of the Convention imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining first whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, and that the purpose of the requirements as to form imposed by article 17 is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established . . "
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]